I don't have anything important to say or add, but I just want to say I really like your response there!!!!! ^^^Originally Posted by CarolPetunia
This is why I'm astonished that Wikipedia is considered an acceptable resource for any purpose! Everybody's got an agenda, and it's only through multiple layers of verification across a wide range of sources, followed by extremely careful editing to remove all hint of bias, that anything like accuracy can be achieved. I don't even trust myself enough to edit an encyclopedia -- I sure don't trust the PR guy at Diebold!
The university I attend doesn't even allow it to be used as a source. Last fall a kid in my class wondered why he got a D and stated he got everything off of wikipedia. He refused to read any of the books in class saying they were all biased.Originally Posted by CarolPetunia
This is why I'm astonished that Wikipedia is considered an acceptable resource for any purpose! Everybody's got an agenda, and it's only through multiple layers of verification across a wide range of sources, followed by extremely careful editing to remove all hint of bias, that anything like accuracy can be achieved. I don't even trust myself enough to edit an encyclopedia -- I sure don't trust the PR guy at Diebold!
I like Wikipedia because it makes me research. If I read it on there I'll track down the facts of things just to see if it's right or wrong.Originally Posted by CarolPetunia
This is why I'm astonished that Wikipedia is considered an acceptable resource for any purpose! Everybody's got an agenda, and it's only through multiple layers of verification across a wide range of sources, followed by extremely careful editing to remove all hint of bias, that anything like accuracy can be achieved. I don't even trust myself enough to edit an encyclopedia -- I sure don't trust the PR guy at Diebold!